# C_2013245EN.01001301.xml

| 24.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/13 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Action brought on 25 June 2013 — Federación Española de Hostelería v EACEA

(Case T-340/13)

2013/C 245/16

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Federación Española de Hostelería (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: F. del Nogal Méndez and R. Fernández Flores, lawyers)

Defendant: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | Annul decision 2007-19641 134736-LLP-I-2007-1-ES-Leonardo-LMP; |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | In the alternative, return the proceedings to the point of the date of dispatch of the misaddressed communications from the auditors, allowing the applicant to make appropriate representations; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | In the further alternative, reduce, in accordance with the principle of proportionality, the amount which the Commission seeks to recover; |
| - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |

| — | Order the Commission to pay the professional fees and other costs incurred in the present case; |
| - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

| — | Order the Commission to reimburse the amounts paid together with the corresponding interest. |
| - | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging breach of the established procedure
—
The applicant claims that the communications concerning the auditor’s report were sent to a third-party, external to the relationship established between the applicant and the defendant Executive Agency. | — | The applicant claims that the communications concerning the auditor’s report were sent to a third-party, external to the relationship established between the applicant and the defendant Executive Agency. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that the communications concerning the auditor’s report were sent to a third-party, external to the relationship established between the applicant and the defendant Executive Agency. | | |

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging breach of the obligation to state reasons.
—
The applicant maintains that the recovery decision is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons, since the Executive Agency sent only a debit note to the applicant, accompanied by the auditor’s report. | — | The applicant maintains that the recovery decision is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons, since the Executive Agency sent only a debit note to the applicant, accompanied by the auditor’s report. |
| -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant maintains that the recovery decision is not supported by an adequate statement of reasons, since the Executive Agency sent only a debit note to the applicant, accompanied by the auditor’s report. | | |

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging breach of the rights of the defence.
—
The applicant maintains that it was not given an opportunity during the administrative procedure to make known its point of view on the accuracy and relevance of the allegations against it and on all of the documents that the Commission used to support its claim alleging breach of European Union law. | — | The applicant maintains that it was not given an opportunity during the administrative procedure to make known its point of view on the accuracy and relevance of the allegations against it and on all of the documents that the Commission used to support its claim alleging breach of European Union law. |
| -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant maintains that it was not given an opportunity during the administrative procedure to make known its point of view on the accuracy and relevance of the allegations against it and on all of the documents that the Commission used to support its claim alleging breach of European Union law. | | |

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
—
The applicant claims that although the contract was concluded in April 2009, the Executive Agency did not give any indication, until April 2013, that it disagreed in any way at all with the arrangements for developing and implementing the Project. | — | The applicant claims that although the contract was concluded in April 2009, the Executive Agency did not give any indication, until April 2013, that it disagreed in any way at all with the arrangements for developing and implementing the Project. |
| -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| — | The applicant claims that although the contract was concluded in April 2009, the Executive Agency did not give any indication, until April 2013, that it disagreed in any way at all with the arrangements for developing and implementing the Project. | | |

| 5. | Fifth plea in law, alleging misuse of power.
—
The applicant maintains that the Commission did not inform it of the facts that could be alleged against it, and did not give it the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of the penalty. | — | The applicant maintains that the Commission did not inform it of the facts that could be alleged against it, and did not give it the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of the penalty. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | - | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| — | The applicant maintains that the Commission did not inform it of the facts that could be alleged against it, and did not give it the opportunity to be heard before the adoption of the penalty. | | |

| 6. | Lastly, the applicant alleges breach of the principle of proportionality. |
| -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------- |

---